Entailment Progressions: A Robust Approach to Evaluating Reasoning Within Larger Discourse

Abstract

Textual entailment, or the ability to deduce whether a proposed hypothesis is logically supported by a given premise, has historically been applied to the evaluation of language modelling efficiency in tasks like question answering and text summarization. However, we hypothesize that these zero-shot entailment evaluations can be extended to the task of evaluating discourse within larger textual narratives. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective method that sequentially evaluates changes in textual entailment between sentences within a larger text, in an approach we denote as "Entailment Progressions". These entailment progressions aim to capture the inference relations between sentences as an underlying component capable of distinguishing texts generated from various models and procedures. Our results suggest that entailment progressions can be used to effectively distinguish between machine-generated and human-authored texts across multiple established benchmark corpora and our own EP4MGT dataset. Additionally, our method displays robustness in performance when evaluated on paraphrased texts a technique that has historically affected the performance of well-established metrics when distinguishing between machine generated and human authored texts.